Bias and favoritism

My time spent on this forum taught me that I overrate Riddick Bowe. Not that I didn't recognise his flaws before but I now realise I was so high on him because his style is so attractive from an action point of view. Still think he is a h2h beast at his best but can accept his best wasn't on display often enough.

I actually think style has a lot to do with how some people rate fighters. For example, those who grew up training/watching western styles of boxing often dismiss the talents of eastern euros as being robotic or stiff while the evidence of the success of fighters from this school of boxing is evident in most of the higher weight divisions today.
I also think certain fighters get over or underrated based on how aesthetically appealing their style of fighting is rather than how effective they are.

Another major factor causing bias is which era the fighter in question was active in. The 'classic' section, in its noble quest to eulogise the storied history of the sport, can be guilty at times of holding modern fighters to impossible standards while heralding past champions as invincible gods. Modernists are no doubt prone to the opposite extreme.

 

None whatsoever

 

No

 

We all have preferences. To me, Ali fans are the worst. They have trouble accepting any limitations or human fallibility on his part at all. I've actually tried really hard to become an Ali fan....but I just can't seem to buy him, as a fighter or person. I think I'd have liked him if I met him in some casual way --he was always nice to fans-- but I just don't see the God-like qualities in him that others do, try as I might.